I hate to nitpick too, but you suggested I was debating a straw man, and are doing so again now. That’s why I’m going to continue with this.
Here’s the original dialogue:
I don’t see any other way to parse this than your question being rhetorical, with the implication that the answer is “no”. If you already thought the answer was “yes”, why ask the question?
I already explained this. So…
…have fun with that.
I wanted to address this.
There are 100 million and more ways to choose to die, but most of them come with a large risk of, shall we say, “suboptimal outcome”. If the results of a suicide attempt were simply “dead” or “still alive in the same shape”, that would be one thing. There are, however, a lot of people out there who have attempted suicide, survived, and live in far worse circumstances than they anticipated.
I had a brother-in-law who tried to kill himself with a bullet through the brain. He survived and spent years longer in a nursing home as a not-quite vegetable. He couldn’t wipe his own ass, he couldn’t complete his suicide, he couldn’t hold a conversation, but he knew something was wrong. Even his parents would have preferred that he’d died properly instead of lingered on as a ward of the state once all his money and theirs was wiped out.
That fate is an argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide. No one will interrupt your suicide when you’ve killed a large portion of your brain but haven’t yet died. You get your glass of Nembutal and a guaranteed overdose.
I agree with this. Suicide is frowned upon because it is unnatural. A person’s instinct teaches him to do whatever it takes to survive: the fight or flight response, senses to defend against predators, etc. To actively want to terminate your life shows that your conscious mind is at odds with what millions of years of evolution have given your subconscious mind.
If you have a painful, terminal illness? Sure, that is a rational override of those instincts. So it the “terrorist torture” scenario. For almost everything else, an outside observer would almost certainly disagree and help you with a better solution.
Much of modern life is “unnatural” and involves overriding our natural impulses.
There are probably more examples where following your natural impulses is frowned upon than the opposite.
What’s the point of saying “It’s irrational, apart from these examples which are rational”.
It’s exactly equivalent to what I’m saying, which is that suicide is not necessarily irrational / product of mental illness.
More specifically, the “terrorist torture” scenario I actually crafted to be representative of a whole raft of reasons for suicide. In that specific scenario, there was no imminent death coming up, suffering, repeated unsuccessful attempts to minimize the pain and so a terrible prognosis.
Well, that’s the situation for many people contemplating suicide. Their suffering may not be physical pain, like in the scenario, but really that’s a misnomer anyway as pain is a mental phenomenon is usually (but not necessarily) preceded by sensory data.
If we’re going to say all forms of extreme mental suffering are pathological, then so is the pain experienced by the hostage.
Yes, sometimes they do. In WWII Japanese soldiers committed suicide in order to achieve certain objectives. These objectives were weighed against their own life in accordance with their values. A sound mind may choose to kill itself if it’s values demand it. There are goals created by certain values in which suicide can be a rational means of achieving for a person of sound mind.
In this case we’re talking about a major celebrity whose family knew was struggling with depression. I highly doubt society was ignoring him. It’s not always that people aren’t getting the help they need, but even in 2014 our ability to understand and treat mental illnesses like depression is limited. About 80% of people treated will see some improvement, which sound great, but what about the other 20%? Also, just because the 80% will see improvement; It doesn’t mean their depression is gone. It could still be an unbearable circumstance (albeit not as bad as before treatment).
It’s true that depression can override one’s thinking process and cause them to commit suicide in a fit of sadness, but also true that weighing the factor of living with an illness that often robs an individual of the ability to experience joy can lead to a carefully measured, rational decision to end one’s life. Unfortunately these decisions are highly stigmatized by the prevailing public opinion towards suicide shared by yourself, and makes it almost impossible to have a thoughtful conversation with loved ones about what is already a heavily emotional weighted issue; Hence, people having to kill themselves alone with crude and brutal means. If a person was going to kill themselves; Wouldn’t you want it done in a humane way?
As a utilitarianist; I can see suicide preferable for certain outcomes in certain circumstances. I’d like to know what philosophy drives your attitude towards suicide? What if life causes more pain than joy for a person and there is nothing we can do to separate that imbalance from one’s life?
You’re right, it seems unlikely Robin Williams was ignored, but it’s very easy to ignore the illness. We don’t like to see it or hear about it, and there’s little public enthusiasm for making progress in the same way there is for physical disorders. In this country, it was recently claimed that only around 65% of people with psychosis and 30% of people with mental problems in general are receiving treatment. There are some similar stats for the US here (“For the past 20 years, studies have consistently estimated that almost half of all individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are receiving no treatment for their mental illness at any given time. According to recent estimates of NIMH, this means that approximately 3.5 million such individuals are receiving no treatment.”)
What is my opinion towards suicide? I’m not sure it’s that similar to the prevailing public opinion. My arguing against poorly thought-out ideas from one side does not necessarily mean I’m a stereotypical supporter of the other. The idea that someone might not pick one camp, adopt all their doctrines and champion all their allies’ views, so matter how foolish, seems to be completely alien to a lot of people here. I know it’s easy to make the mistake of assuming that differing views on x mean differing views on y and z too, but it does get frustrating to keep having to point it out.
I don’t think there were a whole lot of really psychologically healthy people in the Japanese military, especially towards the end of the war.
Probably because there is a belief that if we as a society had a legal set-up for assisted suicide that was relatively easy and painless, it would end up being abused. Many people don’t go through with suicide because it’s a difficult to go through and they fear the pain that would be involved in their final moments. But if it were made easier and painless, more people would probably go through it.
Except, there are people who chose life despite the suffering, but in regards to pets, we don’t give them a choice, we choose for them.
Yes, except according to a psychiatrist interviewing for CBS news; It’s believed Robin Williams was receiving treatment at a psychiatric hospital for depression before his suicide. In any case he was definitely receiving substance abuse treatment, and it’s unlikely they would fail to find a link to depression. The same article goes on to list the difficulty of treating major depression, “Depression is often difficult to treat and can also be resistant to drug therapies. It’s estimated that only about a third of people with major depression will achieve remission after starting antidepressants.” Robin Williams' death highlights challenge of treating severe depression - CBS News
I don’t concede the point I was strawmanning. I never listed any doctrines; Only that most people would be against suicide options for depressed individuals; Which is the position your posts advocate throughout this thread:
“If you want to advocate for assisted suicide options for terminally ill, non-depressed people, then I’ll agree with you, in principle. But the only good we’d achieve by making it easier for depressed people to kill themselves in their lowest moments is a significant reduction in depression in our society.”
I’m all for arguing from a neutral position by just asking questions and critiquing both side’s arguments, but it’s evident by your statements that you’ve already taken a side. I don’t see anyone on this board advocating that people should have the option of killing themselves in their lowest moments, so this is either a strawman or an appeal to the consequences of allowing depressed individuals suicidal options (an argument against suicide for the depressed). You may not be confident of this opinion personally, but you’re at least playing devil’s advocate. So, when I say they share your opinion; I mean they share the opinion you argue from.
A method I would endorse certainly wouldn’t be some sort of walk-in suicide clinic (hyperbole). I think there should be a sort of rigorous psychological evaluation to determine if the decision is stemming from depression-like symptoms (“I just don’t feel like living anymore”, or “I fell like no one really cares about me”) or reasoning based on the patient’s values. If it is evaluated that this person’s reasoning is stemming from depression-like symptoms, but the depression is episodic or seasonal in nature, then they would be scheduled for treatment until the depression was over. It would be the same result for both the patient who evaluated as reasoning with typical depression symptoms, but it’s chronic depression, and the person who demonstrated reasoning based on the patient’s values; An extensive individualized treatment program offering both drugs and therapy. If after the program they still wish to end their lives, then they should be given all the assistance and comfort they need in order to do so. It’s a terrible thing to assist in killing someone not in their right mind, but treatment must necessarily have failed them. They will likely never have their right mind and are unable to make a rational decision either way. It’s important in this case to consider the alternative: A person living through an experience that tells them it would be better if it all ended and there is no end in sight.
This method would work for the people you mention are neglected by society and would never have killed themselves if offered treatment, and also offer a more humane means for people who would choose to do so anyways (similar to abortion clinics). This is just one system I’ve roughly sketched out, and the issue of dependents complicates things, but the option isn’t even there for someone living without dependents yet.
You never answered my question, though. Let me re-phrase it: What if life does, and will continue to, cause more suffering than joy for a person and there is nothing we can do to separate that imbalance from one’s life? Do we insist they live, do we insist they die, or do we take a non-intervention approach? Let’s assume we know their suffering won’t end, their death’s won’t cause even greater suffering than they would have experienced, and they are not in their right minds. This is a hypothetical question posed to gauge one’s ethics. I want to see if people opposed to the idea of euthanasia options for the depressed differ from me in ethics, morals, or application.
My ethics tell me to insist they stop living, but my morals won’t allow me to do much, so it ends up as something kind of in-between insisting they die and non-intervention. The method I propose is based off of this in addition to my own pragmatism concerning the reality of the situation.
The potential problem with the “won’t cause greater suffering” in the case of Robin Williams is that, because he was such a prominent celebrity and his work brought such laughter to tens of millions of people (maybe hundreds of millions) his death by ANY cause would inherently cause pain to millions and millions of people. This would not apply to most severely depressed people but he’s an exception.
Yes, but the question was posed merely in order to gauge one’s ethics. The question has no real world value or equivalent, nor is it meant to be used as an argument. You can accept the hypothetical, but reject my real world model illustrated above. I was only interested in where people were disagreeing with me (ethics or application).
As far as Robin William’s; Yes, his death caused suffering to millions of people, but his death would always have caused suffering to millions of people. He was mortal after all. It is more tragic that it was a suicide; I’ll give you that, but his suffering is known now. The truth might have never gotten out. Look at the debate it’s sparked here. Maybe more people will give depression the respect and attention it deserves. I’m not saying it’s a good thing he’s gone. We don’t know how treatable he was, and that’s the biggest factor.
It’s an interesting example, but such an exception is beyond factoring in a general solution.
Exactly. So everyone is going to experience pain when he passes away anyway, but bringing the date forward, he felt, was better for him.
But in any case, I don’t think it’s fair to say he brought laughter to millions so his death hurts the world. He’s not obligated to do anything and not giving pleasure =/= hurting.
Agreed, but this sure as shit isn’t one of them. It’s basic survival. Like George Carlin once said, the whole purpose of life is not dying. To do something which destroys your entire physical existence, and if you aren’t a religious person, everything about you, then that is by definition the wrong choice for you to make, absent compelling and limited circumstances.
I’m saying it is almost always irrational except in limited, carefully defined circumstances.
The problem with the comparison is that the “terrorist torture” scenario is pretty unique and straight forward. I’m sure that every neutral observer would agree that it is rational to want to end your life in that scenario. To say that this is equivalent with depression or other types of non-terminal illnesses is false. There are many, many resources for people suffering from these illnesses and they can lead productive and normal lives afterwards. They can be there for their children and grandchildren. This goes triple and quadruple for Robin Williams. The guy was rich. He could have paid for top of the line care out of pocket. He had a huge network of friends who would have bent over backwards to help him, but his disease didn’t let him see that.
Also, the person in the midst of such a depression is the absolute worst one to judge the permanency of it. The very nature of the disease leads one to think that life is hopeless. And (I know it wasn’t your intention) but an awful side effect of your line of thought is verification that suicide is a good option. I’m depressed, life sucks, and look here on the SDMB. People are saying that I’m not irrational for wanting to die. I should go through with it.
I think that’s bad. There is no need for permanent solutions to temporary problems.
You’re conceding that the Naturalistic Fallacy exists, and is indeed fallacious reasoning, but saying this is something really unnatural. It doesn’t make sense.
Which is pointless. It’s like saying “I think quantative easing is a really stupid idea, except when it isn’t”.
ISTM just a way of phrasing it to quell the cognitive dissonance of disapproving of the act, but being able to imagine circumstances where you would consider it yourself.
And many people continue to struggle through depression their whole lives. Depression actually has a pretty poor remission rate – the majority of people who’ll receive treatment in their lives will later require treatment again.
And I don’t claim to know someone else’s anguish. It’s tempting for someone to think the torture scenario is far worse than any mental suffering a person could go through, but I think that’s just a lack of imagination. There’s no reason why other situations without physical pain might not be equally desperate.
I’m not telling anyone to do anything. Your life, your choice.
And there’s obviously a difference between saying suicide may be rational in some cases (which, again, is exactly what you’re saying too, but trying to phrase differently), and saying it’s rational in a specific person’s case.
But sure, if the reality of the situation helps push people over the edge…well, I didn’t invent reality. If only.
Someone already did a good rebuttal to your post, but I just wanted to reinforce the idea that depression is not a temporary problem. If you are correctly diagnosed with clinical depression; You have a life sentence. Your ability to cope will be dependent on the severity of the case, how well you respond to medication and treatment, focused effort by yourself, the support of the people around you, and your ability to cope with environmental hardships. Even if all of these factors are met, in many cases, a person’s life may contain more suffering than joy. The fact that Robin Williams had a lot of money is pretty irrelevant. It’s not like they have special drugs they only sell to the rich. You’ve got your Zoloft, Paxil, Wellbutrin, etc. If anything it shows that Depression is not an illness you can throw money at.
I’m not sure that’s the case. I seem to recall several metastudies showing at least a nontrivial recovery rate for MDD (where “recovery” means no further lifetime manifestation of symptoms). But I don’t have any of that research to hand at the moment.
Do you have any links handy to studies showing that MDD is a permanent lifetime diagnosis?
No, I don’t have any on hand. All I have is modern psychology’s viewpoint that depression is a disease characterized by a chemical imbalance with a strong genetic link. I could easily find papers for that if it’s necessary. I don’t doubt that some people who were diagnosed with MDD receive treatment and never show signs again, but they would still be at a greater risk for relapse into depression than a healthy individual would. That would be the indication of a nontrivial, but still low recovery rate. Also, what age were these volunteers? Obviously a 70 year old who never showed signs again would be much less compelling than a 20 year old.
I didn’t mean to imply that people correctly diagnosed with depression-like symptoms will always be able to be correctly diagnosed with depression-like symptoms. Maybe my point was lost in my rhetoric 
I mean to imply it’s a spectrum you’re born onto; One that some people can be shifted on to a more balanced state, but those people are still at a higher risk to fall back into depression. Many people with depression describe this effect as “trying to keep your head above water”. How often you sink is dependent on the factors I listed in my last post.
If he had retired and never performed again there might have been some minor disappointment, but no one would have been hurt. Had he died at 110 of natural causes his passing still would have caused some pain just for the passing of a well-loved human being.
By killing himself, though, he DID cause pain. It wasn’t a matter of failing to give pleasure, he actively caused pain by ending his life the way he did. Given how well known he was and what he did for a living there was no way to kill himself that would have been painless to others, even if hypothetically it could have been painless to him.
The problem with that argument is that it boils down to life isn’t worth living unless it’s entirely without pain. That’s just not true for most people. Most of us put up with a certain amount of pain be it mental or physical while going about life.
It’s possible to have daily, chronic pain AND still feel life is worth living.
I’m gonna have to say that’s a non sequitur and probably a strawman. What you’re arguing against is negative utilitarianism; Which holds that life’s principle should be to minimize pain.
Most utilitarians who advocate euthanasia either choose to maximize pleasure, or maximize pleasure while minimizing pain. In any case it’s possible to accept a life filled with pain, but still advocate euthanasia.